Wednesday, June 24, 2015

The ‘I’ in the Internet Must Also Stand for India

When the Snowden revelations brought American control over global
communications into sharper relief, the United States threw a curveball
at the global Internet community. It proposed and backed a
multi-stakeholder framework of governance to manage the critical logic
layer of the Internet and offered to replace US oversight of
key functions within the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) to a body comprising all stakeholders. It was becoming
apparent that while the net as we know it may well have been invented
and seeded in the US, its continuing and overwhelming control of this
common resource was untenable. But the US proposal was clever for two
reasons. First, US corporations and US civil society groups (many funded
by these corporates) are more than capable of managing core US
interests even after Washington cedes control. Second, it was and is
still quite improbable for a multi-stakeholder mechanism to replace US
control of the functions of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (
IANA), failing which the IANA transition process would continue to
remain where it was. Indeed, this was precisely the outcome which loomed
large as important digital nations such as India remained at a distance
from this process.

Things changed dramatically on Monday when the Indian Minister for
Communication and Information Technology, Ravi Shankar Prasad, in a video address to the ICANN gathering in Buenos Aires stated that,
“the internet must remain plural, must be managed through a
multilayered and multistakeholder system.” He added that “its strengths
will lie in partnerships between like-minded nations and stakeholders,
built on a platform which supports and will sustain a future of equity
and innovation and collaboration and inclusion.”

Nuances in India’s stand

Even as this announcement is studied, digested and lauded, some
nuances within the text need to be discussed further. First, it is clear
that even as India has opted for the multistakeholder system of global
governance, it is still pushing for reform of this system to ensure it
becomes more plural, equitable, geographically representative and
democratic. This is something the minister’s speech clearly highlighted.
It is not business as usual for India and it will certainly not be
business as usual for those occupying pride of place on the governance
high table. This model requires greater plurality and diverse
representation that will challenge much of the group thinking that
dominates this sector. Prasad was categorical in his pronouncement if
the subtext of his speech is properly understood. India was not merely
seeking to blindly support a system of Internet governance dominated by
the Atlantic countries but was seeking an imminent rebalance towards
Asia.

The second message embedded within Prasad’s speech was that India is
keen to engage with all forums . The fact that the Indian minister
announced the policy shift at ICANN53 is a message in itself. That he is
finalising his visit to ICANN in the near future is evidence of deeper
engagement with a process that India had hitherto distanced itself from.
The minister also alluded to something that has exercised the mind of
many Indian stakeholders, that the country must host something that can
match and surpass the scale and reach of the NETMundial hosted by the
Brazilians. The development agenda and the framework for the digital
economy that could change the lives of the ‘next billion’ must be
crafted and co-developed by this billion, in their own neighbourhoods.
The minister’s assertion that India will host an international
conversation that will articulate India’s own motivations and objectives
to the world and make the global community a partner in this mission
must be understood in this vein.

The next billion

The Indian state has both committed to transforming itself through
digital means and at the same time building a global system that can
accommodate and allow for such a transformation. Access, Voice and
Opportunity must not be more cumbersome for the ‘next billion.’ And,
this also means more responsibility for the Indian government. By opting
for multistakeholderism it has just signed up for a bag full of new
responsibilities. The agency of the sovereign will now have to be
secured by a variety of stakeholders who may be more acceptable in
certain forums. The government will have to invest in building capacity
among them, building greater diversity among those who participate and
ensuring greater representation of these stakeholders at key Internet
governance debates globally. Without this, for India and many others,
the global multistakeholder system will continue to reinforce existing
disparities of the real world even in the digital world.

The third significant message within the speech was the quest of
India to seek partnerships with key countries and institutions. And it
is here that India will be able to carve a space significantly different
from others. A space that a country of the size of India needs, the
room a diverse and developing democracy must have. The needs of a
billion people impose a very different set of responsibilities on a
political system which must deliver to remain relevant. This was a
call to those on the governance high table, particularly the United
States, to respond adequately to the Indian overture. That these two
countries, the largest net communities in the democratic world, must
cooperate is unexceptionable, essential and inevitable. The details of
this cooperation now need to be fleshed out and could be based on three
key strands of association.

What the US must do

The US has long considered the free flow of information and commerce a
pre-condition to a healthy global economy. India, as it digitally
connects, is looking to forge the right partnerships to ensure limitless
economic opportunities for its citizens. The first pillar of the
India-US cyber relationship should be to ensure that their consumers and
producers are able to leverage the largest English-speaking digital
markets in the world. For this, they need a digital space free from
encumbrances of power politics and petty policy. This would mean
rationalising tax regimes, expanding Internet connectivity, settling
issues of Internet jurisdiction, developing contemporary approaches to
intermediary liability and operation, agreeing on data collection, data
ownership and data management, privacy and freedom of expression, as
well as developing an eco-system that would allow for investments
in technology and infrastructure, crucial for the development of these
digital markets.

A strong security partnership is the second aspect of the India-US
relationship. Both countries believe strongly in the role of national
governments in shepherding their societies through a host of new
challenges. For both, strong nation-states lie at the centre of a
multistakeholder system and, unlike European countries, neither is
seeking to aggregate or dilute sovereignty. Therefore, the
bilateral partnership needs to be built on a realist paradigm. From
information sharing on crime, to attacks on critical infrastructure to
countering terrorism, the India-US relationship can rise to become the
backbone on which the Internet stands strong. For the US, this
partnership should form the central ‘I’ of the Internet. For India, the
US is already its chief digital interlocutor.

There should also be close collaboration on the logic layer of the
Internet. Any one who understands the Internet realizes that there is a
certain reality of the logic infrastructure that the Internet runs on.
This is the dominance of the United States of America. Though the
international community may manage ICANN or some other institutions,
oversight rests with the US government alone. US courts have
jurisdiction over the entities, and disputes between countries and
Internet institutions are tried under US law.

Yes, WeCANN

The India-US relationship must deliver space to India on this front.
Even as the all-important debate over how best to internationalise these
institutions continues, the US must find ways to provide India the
comfort that it seeks for its huge digital community. This could be by
way of a bilateral deal around digital jurisdiction and territory, more
Indian presence in the corporations involved with running the internet –
the ‘i’ family – as well as the eventual and desirable location of a
root server in India. The argument that “if we give this to India, China
will want it too” is disingenuous. The US policy community continuously
reminds India that it must not side with a Russia or China, as it is
different and democratic. Yet, the very same community is quick to
create equivalence of these countries with India when the latter seeks
unique treatment.

Carving out a place for India, proportional to its growing weight in
the global Internet eco-system is crucial. If this does not happen, the
celebrations around India supporting a multistakeholder system may be
short-lived. The security and political hawks will strike back and
prevail and the Indian state will find comfort in the old methods of the
last century. The US must see this message from Ravi Shankar Prasad as
an opening, a new opportunity to meaningfully engage India.
Even as Washington expects India to be a net security provider in the
Indo-Pacific region, the country is offering itself as a key partner in
managing the cyber oceans. This moment must not be lost. India has
responded favourably to the post-Snowden Internet governance
proposition, The US must now reciprocate.

Samir Saran is vice president and Mahima Kaul heads the cyber and media intiative at the Observer Research Foundation

2 comments:

Good article, Mahima. I have ten years experience in PR-activity and I think that you're brilliant in writing. So you can use the PR-platform http://prnews.io/ in your work. There're a lot of Indian news resources for sponsored publications. Thanks and good luck.